Take the 403/ 6.6L olds from 1977

185 hp and maybe 14mpg

now compare a LS6 6.0L from a cadillac cts-v

405 hp and will get an honest 27 mpg on the HWY

remember even the biggest most "firebrething" big blocks from the late 70's were doing good to whese out 200hp

compare engines of 5 liters or smaller and things go even more lopsided in favor of today's powerplants. A family sedan with a modern 3.5L V6 is pretty damn fast. A Granada with a 6cyl was an absolute SLUG that would scare the pee out of people nowdays from being so grossly underpowered

 

Well in the 70s overdrive wasn't very big, so that ment 1:1 final gear ratio.
Now some trannys have 6 speeds and 2 or 3 are overdrive which loweres RPMs at cruise speeds which means more mpg. So that sound like the transmission is the thing getting more mpg, not all engine.

Also, in the late 70s they started calculating hp and torque at the rear wheels.
Now it's all at the crank.
So something that makes 200 hp at the rear wheels could easily be 260 at the crank.
The 5.4 in the new F150s makes 300 at the crank, but about 240 at the rear wheels...

 

RE: Horsepower rating change. Not exactly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

Scroll down to the heading "SAE Gross Horsepower"


http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

Both of these talk about the 1972 rating change and give examples of gross vs. net. The gross hp numbers were pretty bogus, even on so-called "underated" engines.

 

In the name of heaven where did you get your information? Almost every word you write is wrong. Don't you dare doubt me, I was there then. I've forgotten more than you know.

I seriously doubt the 185 h. p. you claim was produced by that '77 Olds was calculated in the same manner as today. And I doubt the accuracy of that number. If a 1967 Chevy 250 c. i. d. I-6 was rated at 145 to 155 h. p., which is was, you're telling me 153 more cubes only netted an additional 30-40 h. p.? I didn't take notes on every car I ever looked at, but I do recall that, on average, most factory stock equipped cars produced horsepower just over half the cubic inch displacement. Some were higher if they were sport or luxury models, which usually had a fancier carburetor and cam maybe.

Yes, the mileage was not great. There were single barrel carburetors, fluid drive torque convertors (no lock-up clutches) on automatics and 1:1 final drive on manual transmissions. Few, very few cars were made with factory overdrive. The cars were heavier and less aerodynamic. Not much plastic and little aluminum...but the chrome was REAL!! Even those engines in smaller and more aerodynamic cars were approaching or into the 20's m. p. g. I had a '68 that got 35 m.p.g., but it only weighed 1770 lbs. Today's cars ARE smaller, more aerodymanic, and lighter than a car of similar "size" of 25 -40 years ago.

Today's "powerplants" have a ton of advantages, literally, and my point in this entire forum is to point out that what we have isn't as great as they ought to or could be because some people are so focused on emissions first and power, performance, and efficiency a distant second.

Our entire focus of attention, automotively speaking, is crazily tilted toward satisfying the needs of a few select areas of the country (where they should be relying solely on public transportation if they insist on living in those areas) and to hell with the remainder of the country's needs.

My belief is that the problem should have been approached oppositely, from the power, performance, and efficiency standpoint first, then learn to control the resulting emissions after that task is completed, if found then to be necessary.

The firebreAthing big blocks of the late seventies were formerly good engine designs that were castrated and suffocated and we were lucky they worked at all. And I believe that was caused by "Detroit" trying to meet Federal MANDATES too soon, using existing engine technology and strapping on gadgets to try to satisfy the rapidly changing requirements.

Some of you will remember that before this time there were numerous "foreign" models available that disappeared from the U. S. market as the emissions requirements tightened. The celebrated European and Asian manufacturers were smart enough to withdraw those cars rather than try to adapt them to our government's flaky requirements.

 

Well, not exactly, sir. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science or engineering knows these horsepower rating numbers are derived from a very strict set of mathematical formulae. Taking into account all the variables found in real life, it is no surprise that these numbers were not accurate. Also, for a certain period of time, horsepower was an important marketing tool and some engines were "rated" rather generously under pressure from the sales department. Still, theoretically, if every engine design is rated using the same formulae, those numbers are useful for comparison purposes. But not for comparison to a farm tractor, for example, with the h.p. measured at the P. T. O.

In other words, you can't compare apples and oranges.

The way to know power output is to measure it on a dynamometer.

Oh, I know you're from Calif. and you might have trouble understanding this, but try real hard and you might be able to do it.

 

http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofe403.htm

I'll doubt you and go even farther to state that you're the one in error

Perhaps you should do some more research! I've owned this engine I can certianlly believe the 185hp claim, although torque is still rather good. After the 1972 change from Gross HP to NET all engine horsepower calculations are made in the same manner

A 67 model engine is rated in GROSS HP which is essentally a made up number with little or no basis in fact. Kinda like modern tow ratings. On a modern engine dyno I'd be suprised if a 67 model 250 6cyl would bust 100HP.

According to my resources the same 250 6cyl "lost" 35 HP from 1971 to 1972 from the change in HP rating systems

One thing I remember is that with the old Gross system engines would be dynoed without any of the accessories. There's 20 to 30hp right there!


They may be smaller and more aerodynamic but they certianlly aren't lighter.

A ford focus weighs 2700lbs

a mustang weighs 3500

and a crown vic is over 4000

Sounds like you've forgotten more than you "thought" you knew

 

You're from NEW YORK and you insult people from CA? I'm from Washington state originally. I posted a couple of links. Take the time to read both the links and you might learn something, if you are open to that and not convinced that you are always right. The links mention dyno testing and the change in methodology.

 

Going back to my original question, apparently everyone is good with the way things are to the point that there is no need to discuss it further.

 

Whew! It's tough to agree with someone when they come at you like that. I guess I've been put in my place. I agree with whatever it is you said.


Going back to my original question, apparently everyone is good with the way things are to the point that there is no need to discuss it further.

 

Thread->

 

See this thread instead:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/718910-econo-cars-of-the-early-90-vs-econo-cars-of-today.html

 

Todays engines are so in tune with the pollution controls, they won't run correctly with out them. Back in the day you got a car and first thing you start ripping off pollution controls. It would give you an hp and mpg bump. Now days if you miss with pollution controls the car runs like crap if it runs at all and it hurts hp and mpg.

 

I understand that. Compression, cams, heated intake, timimg, etc., etc. are all tuned to work together to produce the result they desire.

What I am saying is that if the systems, i. e. high-energy electronic ignition, multi-port timed fuel injection, (in some cases) variable valve timing, ram induction style tuned intakes, header like exhaust manifolds, etc. were tuned to perform without the obvious performance inhibitors like heated intake air, exhaust recycling, purposely restricted exhaust systems, retarded timing, etc. would we not have more efficiently performing engines?

Would it not make sense to develop the engine that produced the absolute MOST power from the LEAST fuel, then match the engine size to the job and THEN manage whatever emissions are then produced, rather than sacrifice mpg's to manage emissions?

I dunno.

I don't think they did it that way, however.

 

http://www3.telus.net/cbradley/Engin...fications.html
Hp ratings are really don't mean as much as torque ratings and the number for hp is
figured from torque!! You multiply the torque by the rpm then you divide that by 5252
Which is a engineering constant and that is why the hp is taken at a higher rpm since
it makes the power seem like more, When you figure it by the torque peak you get a
really low hp number. Torque is the force that gets you moving down the road and
is what really should be the concern when looking at a motors power. If you keep
your rpms closer to the toque peak you will get better mileage and that is why the
OD gearing is set to get the motor rpms running a bit above the torque peak rpms.
Power to weight ratio should be a stated thing for comparison between vehicles and
really give a better idea on how the vehicle performs as a whole. Of course carrying
unneeded weight, improper inflation, out of tune, restricted intake will throw all the
mpg numbers out the window and even the castings from the first production run
to the last will end up in variances in the power and mpg you end up with!!
Heres a scantool with a display that will show your MPG, and other functions while
driving and has a tachometer in case you have a car that doesn't have one that way
you can keep the motor in it's sweet spot and getting the best mpg and power.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8426/

 

I'm not doubting that they try to figure, or I'll say "estimate", the hp ratings from the torque...and that's all they are (ratings and estimates) unless it's measured and certified, right?

To backtrack a little, I used to be fairly smart, got into an Ag Engineering program at a college that showed me I wasn't half as smart as I thought I was. Anyhow, in one of those Ag Engineering courses we had to learn the mathematical formula by which horsepower ratings were calculated for an internal combustion engine. There were several. maybe a dozen or more, variables and once you plugged them all in the resulting number was supposed to bear some relationship to the measurable P.T.O. horsepower (farm equipment, right?). Some of the variables used certain assumptions that could be finessed to affect the outcome and I had always supposed the massaging of the "finesseable" numbers was what Detroit did to get their numbers for the sales brochures.

The more I read on here the more I am thinking my information, however correct it may have been at one time, is either outdated or I learned that stuff after a particularly joyous week-end of suds and such.

As for torque, I have always preferred an engine with a lower top-end, longer stroke, higher torque, etc. 'cause it takes a lot of fancy (costly) equipment to make use of a high top-end, high cfm flow, high "hp" engine, as well as lots of fuel to accomplish all that, though they do sound nice. Maybe that's why I ended up at the controls of a locomotive. Top rpm in most is about 1,050.

I always wished I could have driven a mid-sixties to early seventies GMC truck with the "Twin-Six" 702 cu. in. V-12. A brother-in-law's Dad drove a cab-over Jimmy gasoline tanker back then and loved it (when it was running right), said it would walk past any other truck on the road climbing a hill with a full load. GMC's ads of the day boasted the highest torque of any other truck in its class, although it was only rated at something like 265 hp.